Sorry I messed up your quote......I relate the trinity to things here on earth as only something to try and attach to for understanding. I believe that clues or reflections of other dimensions are a possibility. It's like a two dimensional creature (if you know the flatlander concept) trying to understand a three dimensional creature. It is impossible to completely understand, but clues or reflections of other dimensions can provide a kind of evidence.

Ah, the chance of actual evidence of a god? Might we be able, at least in principle, to detect god in some way? If we could do that we would not even have this forum any more!

Quote

I think that "I AM" is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed. It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God. Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way. Since He announced it. I didn't take the time to look at the original Greek or Hebrew for the words used when calling satan god, or rulers gods. It's clear when reading those scriptures in their context that they are gods with a little "g" and not God Himself or equated to God at all. I think actually that Jesus was not denying what He claimed but actually reiterated it again in John 10:38......I am in the Father and the Father is in me. It certainly made the Jewish leaders angry. - Patrick

Playing with names and titles of Jesus and god was quite an academic industry a while ago but interest has turned in other directions since. There's only so much one can learn about anything just from titles.

I think the quote you want for Jesus is, "Before Abraham was I am"[1] and that certainly looks like a quote of the tetragrammaton. personally, I would have some doubts about the authenticity of the phrase, though, as I can't imagine people taking that statement seriously, even if it was true.

So far as capital letters are concerned, the whole of the Greek manuscripts, the oldest ones, are written in all-capitals (uncials) and without spaces between the letters (see here P45). Later manuscripts started to use lower case letters as well and scribes applied capital letters for words that seemed to need them. Naturally, those who provide translations of the bible for Christians use a capital 'g' for god to match the requirements of that religion.

Same with the Quran-- Arabic was like Hebrew, a written language without upper and lower case, or even vowels as we think of them in English. There are words that can mean one thing if written with certain vowels and something else if written differently.

Like, there is such a big difference between the meanings of sick, sack, sock and suck that you can't just wave away one little vowel change as insignificant. Pick one vowel over the others and you have a completely different sentence:

Multiply that by thousands of words..... and you have the King James Bible. No wonder so many passages read like medieval gibberish. They are medieval gibberish![1]

Hard to imagine there wasn't also a leeeettle leeway in the interpretations as people transcribed the manuscripts. Some Roman Empire monk in the 400's with a difficult passage of Hebrew:

"Of course god would not say that there were other gods equivalent in power and majesty to him. He had to be talking about something else when he said 'we' and 'us'. Let's see, let's see. Oh, I got it! He meant himself, his son and his spirit! See, now, this makes perfect sense in light of what we now understand about god's triune nature..."

And in a stroke of his quill, he erases a hundred rounds of debates and a few hundred banished heretics and a few thousand people killed over the nature of god. Fast forward 1600 years, and people will read what the monk wrote, translated into Shakespearean English (a bastard language made up of low German and high French that the monk never even heard of) and declare it the unchanged word of god, breathed straight from his own holy lips.

I relate the trinity to things here on earth as only something to try and attach to for understanding. I believe that clues or reflections of other dimensions are a possibility. It's like a two dimensional creature (if you know the flatlander concept) trying to understand a three dimensional creature. It is impossible to completely understand, but clues or reflections of other dimensions can provide a kind of evidence.

The reason why you can't relate the trinity to things here on earth is because we don't have any "squared circles" here in this "dimension" on earth. The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is impossible to completely understand is because it is contradictory. For instance, if you think Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" (Yahweh) then Jesus is claiming that there is no God besides him (Is. 44:6-8). And then the resurrected Jesus says in John 20:17 that He has a God. This is a contradiction.

It's better, in my opinion, to not relate the trinity to things on earth because we don't have contradictions like this in the "real world". It's better to just throw out the "trump" card and say that the Trinity is a mystery.

Even the titles in the trinity contradict with the definition of the trinity. The title SON implies that he was descended from his FATHER. It would follow then that the Father and Son can't be co-eternal like the definition of the trinity suggests. Another contradiction! If God wanted me to think that the Father and Son were co-eternal with one another, why would he call the second person of the trinity the Son which means "a descendent"? Is God just messing with the minds of people? Or maybe people got the concept of the nature of the Godhead wrong. Or another thought is maybe this God doesn't even exist.

I think that "I AM" is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed. It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God. Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way. Since He announced it.

There is very convincing evidence out there (for an open mind) that Jesus was not claiming the title of "I AM" in John 8:58. There is an excellent book out called, "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn. I will type out the two pages of his book for you that makes a convincing counter-argument so you don't have to buy the book. He looks into the Greek text and "textually" makes a great case in my opinion. However, I don't want to take the time if you are not interested in the opposing view. Just let me know.

In addition, there is some evidence that a couple of early Church Fathers didn't think Jesus was claiming the title of Yahweh in John 8:58.

Furthermore, the evidence you have to say that Jesus was claiming the divine name ("I am") in John 8:58 is only circumstantial as the Jews picked up stones to stone him. A counter-argument could be that Jesus was obviously not claiming the divine name and the Jews picked up stones to stone him for another reason besides claiming the divine name because Jesus said "I am" in John 8:24 and the Jews responded by saying, "Who are you" in v. 25. Didn't Jesus just tell the Jews he was God? The Jews ask a really dumb question here in John 8:25 unless Jesus wasn't claiming the divine name.

It's clear when reading those scriptures in their context that they are gods with a little "g" and not God Himself or equated to God at all.

Clear maybe to you. But you have a presupposition that the bible only reveals a trinity. For example: after reading 2 Cor. 4:4, how could you prove me wrong that this "God" being mentioned here (whoever he/she is) shouldn't be included in the Godhead. For instance, I could actually make an argument that the bible reveals a quadrinity. My argument would be, "Just because this 'God' is only mentioned once should not mean that we should take he/she/it out of the Godhead." Yes, the forth person of the quadrinity is a major jerk for taking away people's free will by "blinding the minds of the unbelieving" but I would say that this is nothing different than the "God" of the old testament "hardening Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 10:27).

Sorry, I take issue when people say the words "clear" and "scripture" in the same sentence. If I was God and inspired a book I would definitely only use the titles for God (Hebrew/Greek or otherwise) to represent myself. I would definitely make humans invent different words to mean gods with a little "g" to avoid confusion. If I did allow gods with a little "g" to share the same name as me then I would consider myself a God of confusion. And then I would consider myself a jerk if I actually allowed gods with a little "g" to share the same name as me to cause confusion and then allow humans to write in my inspired word that I am "not a God of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

I think actually that Jesus was not denying what He claimed but actually reiterated it again in John 10:38......I am in the Father and the Father is in me. It certainly made the Jewish leaders angry. - Patrick

I don't by it! If Jesus reiterated the fact that he was making himself out to be God then you are going to have to ask yourself, "Why all the rhetoric from John 10:34 to 10:37. All this only adds to confusion. Jesus should have just said, "Damn right I'm God" in verse 34. I mean, according to your view Jesus already claimed the divine name ("I am") way back in Chapter 8 of John. Why all this confusion? First you should ask yourself why the Jews asked, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10:24). What a stupid question! The Jews already knew that Jesus claimed to be the "I am" in chapter 8 right? Could it be that Jesus was correcting the claim of making himself out to be the one true God in verses 34-37? This verse should give it away: "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the SON OF GOD" (John 19:7).

In addition, I'm not buying your evidence that Jesus is claiming to be God by saying "the Father is in Me, and I in the Father". The same language is used in Chapter 17 of John:

1.)"...that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in Us..."(v. 21).

2.)"...I in them and You in me..." (v. 23)

3.)"...the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them." (v. 26)

Using your logic and interpreting John 10:38 the way you do, I would have to also believe that Christians can be ONE BEING with God since the same language is used in chapter 17.

Furthermore, you can't definitely say that the Jews were angry in 10:39 because Jesus was claiming to be the one true God. The text doesn't say why the Jews wanted to seize Jesus in v. 39 after he corrected the claim of making himself out to be God. There are many other options. To name a few:

1.) Maybe the Jews misunderstood Jesus' ambiguous language and mistakingly thought Jesus was making himself out to be God.

2.) They wanted to seize Jesus because they were envious (Matt. 27:18)

3.) The Jews thought their nation would perish because this one person could possibly start a revolution and piss off the Romans. (John 11:50)

4.) They wanted to seize Jesus because although he corrected the claim of being the one true God, He admitted to being the Son of God in 10:36 (John 19:7)

5.) They wanted to seize Jesus because they thought Jesus was delusional, smug, and a jerk.

One last thing. The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father. Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel?

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

One last thing. The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father. Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel?

This is a good point. Mark seems to have been the model gospel that the other evangelists used in composing their own. Arguably, if it isn't in Mark we ought to suspect it of being an invention by its author. Yes, I know, Matthew Luke and John hand the 'special sources' - but what does that mean? It means these are the bits of the gospels that have no parallels in the other gospels. What it doesn't mean is that we have located the earlier texts they used.

While you are at it, Matthew, Mark and Luke are claimed to have used a single source for the parts of their gospels when they all agree - a source called Q (quelle - German, source). People have even published the text of this source and even the layers they claim to find in it (three apparently!) Yet, for this material , we have nothing positive to suggest a source - only common passages. So we could be in a position (I think we are) where Mark is the base text that the others take and adorm and if we take the order of Matthew, Luke and John, we can see the adornments grow with time - a sure sign that the materil is being created and not passed down from sources.

I mean, look at those splendid Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Here's a question for you, Patrick. Where wre Mary and Joseph living before the birth of Jesus and did they have to make a journey before Jesus was born?

The point here is that basic facts ought to agree and if they don't one has a right to be suspicious about the material being written. This is why I am very suspicious about the whole NT and am not at all convinced that we know much about what Jesus actually said as distinct from what the gospel writers say he said. The 'IAM' bit in John is far to much like his whole view of Jesus which is quite different from Mark. Then again another 15 years theology has deduced more that Mark knewand it is reflected in the texts but whatever, it is invented by the author and not verbatim history.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

While you are at it, Matthew, Mark and Luke are claimed to have used a single source for the parts of their gospels when they all agree - a source called Q (quelle - German, source). People have even published the text of this source and even the layers they claim to find in it (three apparently!).

I definitely think there was such a document as the "Q source". I have researched how the NT was put together and there are too many similarities (word for word) in Matthew and Luke. FYI, The consensus is that the author of Mark did not have access to this Q source. Only the writers of Matthew and Luke. Link:

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

I had better spill the beans on this one a bit. I was taught Greek by a scholar called Michael Goulder. His academic life had been very varied but it included al lot of work on the Q Problem. Broadly, he concludes that Q requires that Luke did not see Matthew. However, Luke has quite a few minor agreements with Matthew - minor agreements as word for word bits of text. Goulder et al contend that the source is Matthew and that Luke copied it. Viper's Brood is a favourite Matthean expression but Luke has it only once - in a supposed Q passage - but if he copied it, the need for Q goes.There are others but it is getting late here so I'll not be looking it up tonight.

The question of evidence is another case against Q. Nowhere is it referenced - no ancient text has a quote from it - it is thought it would be a saying gospel like Thomas but it isn't Thomas. Q is solely a hypothesis for which there is no evidence - like god say!

I studied NT with a Q scholar and the first Xmas I was studying, I got a card from Goulder with the message, 'don't believe what ---- says about Q'. I did push the question quite a bit in class but don't think I got anywhere. The fact is that there is no evidence at all and, of course, there is no evidence for the various special sources either. I tend to think the special sources, especially the passages that suit the time of writing and not the time of Jesus, were composed for the purpose of the particular community where the author was writing.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I had better spill the beans on this one a bit. I was taught Greek by a scholar called Michael Goulder. His academic life had been very varied but it included al lot of work on the Q Problem. Broadly, he concludes that Q requires that Luke did not see Matthew. However, Luke has quite a few minor agreements with Matthew - minor agreements as word for word bits of text. Goulder et al contend that the source is Matthew and that Luke copied it. Viper's Brood is a favourite Matthean expression but Luke has it only once - in a supposed Q passage - but if he copied it, the need for Q goes.There are others but it is getting late here so I'll not be looking it up tonight.

The question of evidence is another case against Q. Nowhere is it referenced - no ancient text has a quote from it - it is thought it would be a saying gospel like Thomas but it isn't Thomas. Q is solely a hypothesis for which there is no evidence - like god say!

I studied NT with a Q scholar and the first Xmas I was studying, I got a card from Goulder with the message, 'don't believe what ---- says about Q'. I did push the question quite a bit in class but don't think I got anywhere. The fact is that there is no evidence at all and, of course, there is no evidence for the various special sources either. I tend to think the special sources, especially the passages that suit the time of writing and not the time of Jesus, were composed for the purpose of the particular community where the author was writing.

I disagree with a few things that Michael Goulder claims here but I think we might be getting off topic a bit. I said, "I definitely think there was such a document as the Q source" but I think that sounds too dogmatic. I retract and will say that after looking at all the evidence concerning the hypothetical Q source I find it plausible that such a document existed. There are lots of good articles about the Q source on this website:

It has been awhile since I have studied all of this but I found the existence of the Q source to be the most plausible and following in close 2nd is the idea that Matthew was the source that Luke copied as your professor suggested. I can't remember all the reasons I rejected your professor's hypothesis as most favorable but a couple off the top of my head is that Matthew and Luke have too many differences to conclude that Luke copied from Matthew. Contradictions in genealogies, birth narratives, and resurrection accounts between Matthew and Luke just to name a few.

In addition, I agree with you on the order the gospels were written (Mark, Matthew, Luke then John) and agree that there was embellishment as time progressed. However, I don't see too much embellishment from Matthew to Luke. In fact, sometimes I see it the other way around in that Matthew is embellishing the account like for instance the zombie apocolypse found only in Matthew (chap. 27). Why would Luke not want to copy this zombie account into his gospel? Typical Christian response: "Luke's focus was not on the revealing of the zombies and he didn't find this to be important enough to put in his gospel"

You are right in saying that there is no concrete evidence for the Q source but after investigating Matthew and Luke textually I can see that it is plausible that Matthew and Luke copied off another source ("Q") without copying off one another.

Furthermore, I would say that the evidence for a Q source is more convincing to me than the evidence for God even though the comparative analogy was a clever one of yours. Of course, I can see why you might think I sound crazy. I probably sound like the Christian who says there is evidence of intelligent design - thus the Christian God exists.

Arguing over this is like arguing over which New Testament textual variant is the closest to the original manuscript. You can make an argument and say what variation is probably original but you can't be dogmatic because we don't have the original manuscripts. It is like the intelligent design argument. If everybody was honest they would say they have no idea what caused the universe. Agnosticism is why forum's like this thrive. Sorry if I sounded a bit dogmatic in my last post about the "Q" source. Honestly, I am agnostic and can only "guess" what is most probable (in my opinion) based on the evidence.

What I can conclude is that there was plagiarism going on within the gospels and possibly other hypothetical sources. I come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the texts because the Holy Spirit doesn't exist. Oh crap, I can't believe I just said that. I blasphemed the Holy Spirit. I think I just committed the unforgivable sin. There goes my plan to live like hell and then accept Jesus on my death bed.

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Hey wheels, I have been thinking about the "Q" source today. Maybe in a time in my life when I wasn't so skeptical I accepted the "Q" document as being plainly plausible. However, I have a question for you that you might be able to answer (or maybe a link). Since you studied under a professor who had knowledge on this subject do you remember how many verses or words were copied WORD FOR WORD from the gospel of Matthew to the gospel of Luke? Also, how many verses share the EXACT WORDING from the gospel of Matthew and Luke to the gospel of Thomas?

Throughout my research, I concluded that the "Q" source was primarily a "sayings" source that was plagiarized by Matthew and Luke. In addition, I think it goes without saying that Matthew and/or Luke plagiarized off of Mark. But I actually don't think I ever examined the verse count of exact wording between all these gospels to make a "most plausible" conclusion.

Since I don't think there is such thing as the Holy Spirit anymore, I would be really interested in the exact wording of these gospels. I think examining the "exact wording" verses between Matthew and Luke would somewhat help me in coming to a logical conclusion. The gospel of Thomas is interesting to me too. How many "exact" verses or words do these gospels share.

I appreciate your help.

Why do I care about all this?????? I don't know. Maybe God will possibly forgive my sin of blaspheming the holy spirit since I am seeking the truth and the credibility of the gospel accounts.

Maybe we should also consider developing a new thread to discuss topic???? In a way it would be like discussing the existence of God since we would be discussing a hypothetical source that has little evidence.

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Mark Goodacre has taken up the job of arguing against "Q" and his website on the topic is well worth a read. For example, to see Matthew and Luke at work look here. Here you see Luke just copy the words of Matthew - you really need to read it in Greek to see this but it comes out well enough in English.

I haven't a list of the minor agreements to hand but have a look at the whole site and see what you think.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Mark Goodacre has taken up the job of arguing against "Q" and his website on the topic is well worth a read. For example, to see Matthew and Luke at work look here. Here you see Luke just copy the words of Matthew - you really need to read it in Greek to see this but it comes out well enough in English.

I haven't a list of the minor agreements to hand but have a look at the whole site and see what you think.

Thanks Wheels for the website. I don't have time to read the whole website as I am extremely busy getting ready for the holidays. But trust me, I will. Mark Goodacre's examples (in the website) is exactly what I'm looking for to get a good argument against the existence of the "Q" source.

I don't think Mark had access to "Q" (too many deletions) so my argument against Mark Goodacre's examples would not be what he included in "The explanation". I would argue (probably unconvincingly) that the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus' temptation, and the mustard seed were popular stories and the writer of "Q" copied these stories from another sayings source (or vice versa).

The source that Mark copied these stories off of was not "Q" but another source that wrote these stories down similarly. Your examples have turned my argument into there being more than one "sayings gospel" other than "Q" that was written prior to Mark's gospel. Yes, my claim has turned into an argument for more than one hypothetical "sayings gospel" before Mark was written. I am arguing for more than one "cause" of the synoptic gospels which is analogous to arguing for polytheism.

Do I have scriptural evidence for this? Mmmmm, well, maybe I do. Luke 1:1 states, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us." I'm going to interpret "many" as more than two (two or more hypothetical gospels and Mark).

I am arguing for more than one "cause" of the synoptic gospels which is analogous to arguing for polytheism. What have I gotten myself into? Speaking of believing in non-existent things without sufficient evidence, Robert Price says, "What a tangled web you weave once you think you can believe". Isn't that the truth.

I just thought of something. Another alternative could be that Matthew's and/or Luke's account overlapped (possibly orally) into Mark's account over time and that's why these three popular stories seem to match in some aspects. Remember we only have the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy... of Mark. Grrrreat, this thought might keep me up all night thinking.

I do remember one thing that made me so convinced that there was such thing as a "Q" source and that Luke could not have been copying from Matthew. The evidence is where Luke places some of these word for word ("Q") sayings. For instance, a popular word for word agreement is when John's disciples are sent to ask Jesus if he is the "expected one" (Matt. ch.11/Luke ch.7). Matthew places this story after the demands of discipleship (v. 18-22), the stilling of the sea (v. 23-27), the demons are cast into swine (28-34), restoring the life of the official's daughter (18-26), and the sending and instructing of the twelve apostles.

Luke places the word for word agreement of the sending of John's disciples before all these events. Now I know your response might be that Luke is writing a "consecutive order" (Lk. 1:3) but it seems to me that Matthew was trying to write an orderly account as well. Matthew never says, "And some time during Jesus' life he did ....". Matthew specifically tells of Jesus' journies in his life. For instance, He departed ____ and went into _____ (12:9,13:53 etc.).

So we have a problem. If Luke is copying from Matthew then he is saying that the writer of this gospel is an eyewitness (Luke 1:2). How can he believe that the writer of Matthew is an eyewitness when he gets the order of Jesus' ministry wrong. Not only that but Luke is going to say that this writer is an eyewitness and then jot down a different genealogy, birth narrative, and resurrection account???

Furthermore, if Luke is copying Matthew then he leaves out the killing of all the babies two and under (ch. 2); the calling of the disciples(Ch. 4); Jesus' teaching on being salt and light, murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, love (Ch.5); charitable deeds, fasting (ch. 6); Restoring the sight of two blind men, healing a mute - demon possessed man (Ch. 9); The invitation to come to Jesus (ch. 11); The committing of the unpardonable sin, dissing his real mother and brothers (ch. 12); The parables of the wheat and tares, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price, the dragnet, the householder, the rejection at Nazareth (ch. 13); The recount of the murder of John the Baptist, the walking on water, the healing of many (ch. 14.); The debate over tradition, the healing of the gentile woman's daughter, the feeding of the 4,000 (ch. 15); The debate over a sign from heaven, Jesus calling his disciples faithless idiots (ch. 16); Instruction about taxes (ch. 17); Cutting off evil hands and feet, instruction on a sinning brother, instruction about forgiveness (ch. 18); Instruction about divorce (ch. 19); The parable of the Laborers, instruction about ambition (ch. 20); The cursing of the fig tree, the parable of the two sons (ch. 20); The parable of the Marriage feast, the greatest commandment (ch. 22); The condemnation of the pharisees, the lamentation of Jerusalem (ch. 23); The parable of ten virgins, parable of the talents, judgement of the gentiles (ch. 25); The zombie apocalypse (ch. 27). The appearance of Jesus to the women, the bribery of the soldiers and last, but definitely not least, the great commission (ch. 28).

It is mind boggling to me to think that Luke has Matthew's gospel in his hands and he is going to leave out some of these important things. And at the same time he is going to say the accounts handed down to him were "by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word". If he thought the writer of Matthew was an eyewitness, then why leave out so many important details? How can Luke compile an accurate account and leave out so much?

Honestly, all you have to do is say that I have no evidence of this non-existent thing or things and you win the debate.

One thing I think we can agree on is that the writers of the gospels were delusional.

I wanted to mention something else since Christmas is approaching. I noticed you know about some of the different views on the nature of Christ in post #39 of this thread. You mentioned "Adoptionism", "Sabellianism" and "Arianism". Here's some trivia for you.

Question: Out of these three views, which view of Christ is the "naughtiest"?

Answer: "Arianism"

At the council of Nicaea, Nicholas of Myra (St. Nick - a.k.a Santa Claus) bitch slapped Arius across the face for his views on the nature of Christ. I am not kidding. Trust me, I couldn't make up something this funny. I will cut and paste from the article and then give you the link at the end.

Noting the attendees of the Council of Nicaea, the article states, "circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends)."

Then under the Arian controversy heading, the article states, "The Arian discussions and debates at the council extended from about May 20, 325, through about June 19. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was struck in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.

1.) If the nature of Christ is so clear in the bible according to fundamentalist Trinitarians, why did it take almost a month to hammer out the correct nature of Christ. Shouldn't someone just have pointed to the "I AM" statements in John and say, "This debate is over because it is so clear here in John 8:58 that Jesus is claiming to be God!" As a skeptic I had to ask myself why wasn't the "I AM" statements clear enough during the time of this council. After researching, I found some convincing evidence for myself that Athanasius (the catalyst of the budding Trinitarian movement) didn't even think Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I AM" (Against The Arians - Discourse IV Chap. 20). I'll poke around and find the link if you are interested. It's getting late.

2.) As you probably know, the Arian controversy didn't end after the council of Nicaea (google Arian controversy). It is mind boggling to me how Arius could convince people to follow him after people found out that Santa Claus disapproved of his teachings. WHAT IDIOTS! DIDN'T THEY KNOW THAT BY FOLLOWING ARIUS THEY WOULDN'T GET ANY CHRISTMAS PRESENTS!!!

I am leaving for a week for the holidays and will be in a remote area with no internet service. To the three people still viewing this thread (moderators included), I wish you a merry xmas.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,AND TO ALL A GOOD FIGHT (with religious family members)

« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 03:58:25 AM by Andy S. »

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The reason why you can't relate the trinity to things here on earth is because we don't have any "squared circles" here in this "dimension" on earth. The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is impossible to completely understand is because it is contradictory. For instance, if you think Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" (Yahweh) then Jesus is claiming that there is no God besides him (Is. 44:6-8). And then the resurrected Jesus says in John 20:17 that He has a God. This is a contradiction.

It's better, in my opinion, to not relate the trinity to things on earth because we don't have contradictions like this in the "real world". It's better to just throw out the "trump" card and say that the Trinity is a mystery.

Jesus is saying there is no God except Him. But He also said that "I and the Father are One". So He isn't contradicting Himself if you understand the trinity is a possibility outside of our earthly dimension.

Even the titles in the trinity contradict with the definition of the trinity. The title SON implies that he was descended from his FATHER. It would follow then that the Father and Son can't be co-eternal like the definition of the trinity suggests. Another contradiction! If God wanted me to think that the Father and Son were co-eternal with one another, why would he call the second person of the trinity the Son which means "a descendent"? Is God just messing with the minds of people? Or maybe people got the concept of the nature of the Godhead wrong. Or another thought is maybe this God doesn't even exist.

My guess is that He is called the Son, because He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed. Before that, He was always with God as it says in John 1. Christian belief is that Jesus has a resurrected body that is capable of living in heaven and manifesting here on earth as He did in the upper room. A body that all believers will have someday.

There is very convincing evidence out there (for an open mind) that Jesus was not claiming the title of "I AM" in John 8:58. There is an excellent book out called, "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn. I will type out the two pages of his book for you that makes a convincing counter-argument so you don't have to buy the book. He looks into the Greek text and "textually" makes a great case in my opinion. However, I don't want to take the time if you are not interested in the opposing view. Just let me know.

Yes, I'm always interested in the opposing view. Feel free to send it to me or link it somehow. Thanks

Yes, I'm always interested in the opposing view. Feel free to send it to me or link it somehow. Thanks

Great Patrick Henry. I wish I had time to type out the two pages of his book now but my plane leaves in a few hours. Like I said in my above post, I am going to a remote place without internet service for the holidays. I will type out his argument when I get back on the 26th. I found his argument convincing in addition to the evidence of the early Church fathers. I'll give you that evidence as well. I want to know what you think of the evidence so maybe I'll PM you when I return to remind you to look at this thread.

I don't think his book is online unless I would definitely link it to you.

I would also like to address your above arguments/comments as well. I just don't have time right now. Merry Christmas!

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

One last thing. The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father. Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel?

I mean, look at those splendid Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Here's a question for you, Patrick. Where wre Mary and Joseph living before the birth of Jesus and did they have to make a journey before Jesus was born?

The point here is that basic facts ought to agree and if they don't one has a right to be suspicious about the material being written. This is why I am very suspicious about the whole NT and am not at all convinced that we know much about what Jesus actually said as distinct from what the gospel writers say he said. The 'IAM' bit in John is far to much like his whole view of Jesus which is quite different from Mark. Then again another 15 years theology has deduced more that Mark knewand it is reflected in the texts but whatever, it is invented by the author and not verbatim history.

I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth. There, they met the shepherds, in a stable. Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child. Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.

What's the book and author, Andy. I could try the university library to read it.

Merry Christmas

"Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn (Chapter 10 - Tampering with Tenses). It would be great if I didn't have to type out all of his arguments but I'm afraid I might have to when I return home. Maybe it's online though - I hope so! Gotta Run!

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

One last thing. The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father. Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel?

I mean, look at those splendid Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Here's a question for you, Patrick. Where wre Mary and Joseph living before the birth of Jesus and did they have to make a journey before Jesus was born?

The point here is that basic facts ought to agree and if they don't one has a right to be suspicious about the material being written. This is why I am very suspicious about the whole NT and am not at all convinced that we know much about what Jesus actually said as distinct from what the gospel writers say he said. The 'IAM' bit in John is far to much like his whole view of Jesus which is quite different from Mark. Then again another 15 years theology has deduced more that Mark knewand it is reflected in the texts but whatever, it is invented by the author and not verbatim history.

I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth. There, they met the shepherds, in a stable. Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child. Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.

Were the guys who wrote the gospels present as eyewitnesses to these events? If not, then how do they know what happened. I am not trying to be tricky here. I really want to know where the stories came from, esp. being these days bombarded with Christmas cheer every where I go. How much of the first noel story is factually documented, as opposed to some sort of urban legend?

What's the book and author, Andy. I could try the university library to read it.

Merry Christmas

"Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn (Chapter 10 - Tampering with Tenses). It would be great if I didn't have to type out all of his arguments but I'm afraid I might have to when I return home. Maybe it's online though - I hope so! Gotta Run!

darn it! Just checked - its not in the library near me. Could you scan the pages rather than type them?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth. There, they met the shepherds, in a stable. Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child. Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.

No, you can't get too wrapped up in detail because you know that the two stories differ so much that they are hardly about the same thing.

Look, Luke has in mind Nazareth as to where the couple are living whilst Matthew has them in Bethlehem. Nazareth, at the time, was little more than a couple of houses. Now what you call details, harbinger, I call facts that add credibility to the accounts. Detail that is unimportant might be more 'who stood next to who at the crib'.

The fact of Jesus' place of birth is significant too - in a house or in a stable? Surely that is a solid fact to go on? Yet, no, we have two versions. This has to suggest either than one verison is plain wrong or both versions are made up. That the variation is so stark it suggests that these were made up much later than the gospels too.

harbinger, you need to look carefully at the texts and not skim over the stuff. You need a long hard look and decide what is going on when we have two almost completely divergent accounts of the same event. They just can't both be right!

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth. There, they met the shepherds, in a stable. Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child. Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.

No, you can't get too wrapped up in detail because you know that the two stories differ so much that they are hardly about the same thing.

Look, Luke has in mind Nazareth as to where the couple are living whilst Matthew has them in Bethlehem. Nazareth, at the time, was little more than a couple of houses. Now what you call details, harbinger, I call facts that add credibility to the accounts. Detail that is unimportant might be more 'who stood next to who at the crib'.

The fact of Jesus' place of birth is significant too - in a house or in a stable? Surely that is a solid fact to go on? Yet, no, we have two versions. This has to suggest either than one verison is plain wrong or both versions are made up. That the variation is so stark it suggests that these were made up much later than the gospels too.

harbinger, you need to look carefully at the texts and not skim over the stuff. You need a long hard look and decide what is going on when we have two almost completely divergent accounts of the same event. They just can't both be right!

I don't know why you addressed this to me. the comment wasn't mine. However let me answer your question. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth. they were traveling when Jesus was born in Bethlehem Most likely in the tower of the lamb, where the spotless lambs were raised for the passover sacrifice. This fulfilled prophesy (350 of them fulfilled in christ alone) of Micah 4:8 By the time wise men traveled from the east Jesus was no longer a fresh new born babe and was surely not still in the stable.

In the four gospels you see Each Gospel writer giving account from 4 different perspectives. Each telling the story from their own perspective. The story of the first advent would have no doubt been orally given from either Mary or Joseph seeing none of the 12 would have been there. Each told the story as they remembered it and gave the details they thought were important according to Gods will. I know you want to argue this, but the 4 gospels do not contradict each other More importantly None of your questions or doubt change that Christ has come.. and will come again.

What's the book and author, Andy. I could try the university library to read it.

Merry Christmas

"Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn (Chapter 10 - Tampering with Tenses). It would be great if I didn't have to type out all of his arguments but I'm afraid I might have to when I return home. Maybe it's online though - I hope so! Gotta Run!

darn it! Just checked - its not in the library near me. Could you scan the pages rather than type them?

I forget the word for it but you know when your library gets a book from another library and loans it to you. You could do that...right?

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

I don't know why you addressed this to me. the comment wasn't mine. However let me answer your question. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth. they were traveling when Jesus was born in Bethlehem Most likely in the tower of the lamb, where the spotless lambs were raised for the passover sacrifice. This fulfilled prophesy (350 of them fulfilled in christ alone) of Micah 4:8 By the time wise men traveled from the east Jesus was no longer a fresh new born babe and was surely not still in the stable.

OK, let's start.Jesus was either born in his parents house in Bethlehem (Matthew) or in the stable of an hotel, probably a cave, (Luke) No matter how hard you try these facts cannot be matched together. one of them is wrong. Here's a clue - if there was a census that required everyone to go back to their home town (how likely is that method of census?) then the Romans, who apparently wanted this, failed to make a record of it. This is either handy or make the census of Luke invented.

Then, tower with spotless lambs? Why did Matthew not mention this explicitly? He was using the Septuagint, of course, so maybe that explains why he didn't?

Now, and here's the rub, can you detect a method of writing of Matthew? Have you noticed how he keeps banging on about the fulfillment of prophecies? Now, things could be as it says on the ting but more likely is that Matthew is looking these verses up and is using them to write his story - a story which is not so much factual as a sermon which is there to explain who Jesus was using the various quotes? What do you think??

Quote

In the four gospels you see Each Gospel writer giving account from 4 different perspectives. Each telling the story from their own perspective. The story of the first advent would have no doubt been orally given from either Mary or Joseph seeing none of the 12 would have been there. Each told the story as they remembered it and gave the details they thought were important according to Gods will. I know you want to argue this, but the 4 gospels do not contradict each other More importantly None of your questions or doubt change that Christ has come.. and will come again.

Four writers, four perspectives sounds fine but in some places the facts are the important bit. Are you working on the basis that Matthew and Luke were eye witnesses of the events of Jesus - at least his ministry? If so, you have some explaining as to why they didn't bother to put pen to paper for 40 to 50 years of the death of Jesus. On that basis, Paul had finished his letter writing and Mark had written his gospel. Is it likely them kept silent for that long and then, finally as really quite old men, decided to write it down?

Or is it more likely that they had no contact with the characters of the stories and wrote down the stories going around their own churches and, maybe, added the birth narratives last of all to counter claims from Jews that Jesus was not, in fact, the messiah?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Don't churches generally just pick the one that sounds good, and narrate it as the Christmas story? Not even trying to reconcile all the different versions?

Besides the fact that 1)nobody ever does a traveling census like that, you count people where they are; 2)women don't often travel when they are about to give birth, and 3)if Joseph was in his home town, there would probably have been some folks to stay with while his young bride had their first baby. And a midwife and some women helping out. Having a baby alone while hiding out in the barn is what slaves, runaways and other marginal people do. Nobody brings gifts.

"No room at the inn" for a woman in labor has always seemed bogus to me. Maybe Trump Tower would turn them out into the street, but poor people in desert cultures don't act like that.

In order for Christianity to be self-consistent here, Christianity must necessarily hold that Jesus is both God and the Son of God. Some Christians refer to God as the Trinity, which is composed of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

If we are saying that god is both son and father and, in effect, using a different face for each, that is one of the first Christian heresies, Sabellianism. It was the first that involved people being hcucked out of the church for heresy.

Let me demonstrate this.body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one soul= The emotionspirit= The will

I have been helping with a female friend of mine who is finally leaving an abusive relationship. All to common. I use this because it is what came to me and unfortunately I think at least most of us can relate to it.

The abused woman is beat (body/The vessel) by her so called man. She knows if she stays there that things may get worse. she may even end up dead. She wants to leave him. (will/soul) However due to feelings of helplessness, fear, and inadequacy, and perhaps the worst "I love him" (spirit/ The emotion) she goes against her own will and stays with him, even if it means the destruction of her body.

I think if we spit ball this we could come up with many examples to demonstrate the will is often separate and even in conflict with emotions. sometimes even to the destruction of our own body.

Thus you have 3 "things" that make you one, and because of the conflict that often appears we can make the case these are all separate parts of your oneness.Let me also use this opportunity to say when a Christian says The lord has shown, spoken, revealed whatever it is. This is an example. Something deep hit my soul out of the blue. A deeper thought than what is mine. I wasn't even thinking about it. It even came with a scripture reference. For me the explanation is the wisdom of God. For you (generally speaking) it's just a chemical reaction of the subconscious mind.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Let me demonstrate this.body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one soul= The emotionspirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others? How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine. In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality". But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails. Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed". Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.

not worth arguing really, Anfauglir, this harbinger is not a Christian. He's a Sabellian and a heretic. He also knows better than all the Christian theologians since the 1st century - or likes to think so. Really, he running his onw one man religion.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)